Comparison of Tri-folded and Scroll-based Graft Viability in Preloaded Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.

PURPOSE: To compare corneal endothelial damage associated with 2 techniques for preloaded Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK): a tri-folded graft stored in a plastic cartridge designed for DMEK and a scrolled graft stored in a modified Jones Tube, at the time of preparation and after shipping. METHODS: DMEK grafts were prepared at the Rocky Mountain Lions Eye Bank. The grafts were either tri-folded and loaded in a plastic cartridge or scrolled and loaded into a modified Jones Tube. In each group, the grafts were then either immediately removed from the cartridges or shipped for 48 hours. The grafts were then stained with Calcein AM and imaged using a fluorescent microscope. Endothelial cell loss (ECL) was determined using trainable segmentation in Fiji by 2 graders. At each time point, rates of ECL loss were compared across the 2 groups. To explore the role of donor characteristics, a multivariable regression model was produced to account for method (tri-folding vs. scroll), donor age, donor gender, death-to-preservation time, death-to-preparation time, and shipping. RESULTS: A total of 40 grafts were prepared, processed, imaged, and analyzed. No significant difference in cell loss was seen between groups at either time point alone. In the multivariate model, no significant increase in cell loss was associated with either tri-folding (3.7% less ECL; P = 0.051) or shipping (4.3% less ECL; P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: All techniques used resulted in clinically acceptable levels of ECL. Tri-folded tissue in a plastic cartridge did not result in ECL inferior to a scroll when prepared either immediately or preloaded for 48 hours.

Viability of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Grafts Folded in the Eye Bank.

PURPOSE: Preloaded, trifolded grafts in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty require transfer of the trifolding process from the corneal transplant surgeon to the eye bank technician. We sought to assess whether trifolding may be safely conducted by an eye bank technician with cell loss comparable to standard peeling and lifting. METHODS: A total of 10 grafts were stained, peeled, and transferred directly onto a bed of Calcein-AM and Amvisc Plus by an eye bank technician. Five grafts were removed and stained as a scroll, and 5 grafts were trifolded with the endothelium in before transfer. Photographs were acquired with an inverted fluorescence microscope, and image segmentation was performed. A t test was conducted to compare differences in endothelial cell loss across groups. RESULTS: Mean cell loss in the scroll group was 18.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.2%-21.9%] compared with 7.6% of the trifolded group (95% CI: 1.7%-13.5%). A 2-tailed t test indicated decreased cell loss in the trifolded group (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Despite additional manipulation of the graft, trifolding of Descemet membrane and endothelium may be performed by an eye bank technician without significantly increased cell loss relative to graft preparation as a scroll.